Godwin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, No. 75-2196

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before CARTER and ELY; JAMES M. CARTER; ELY
• Citation: 540 F.2d 1013
• Docket Number: No. 75-2196
• Decision Date: 16 August 1976
• Parties: 4 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1603, 1976-1977 O.S.H.D. ( 21,084 Richard GODWIN, Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent.

Page 1013

540 F.2d 1013 4 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1603, 1976-1977 O.S.H.D. ( 21,084 Richard GODWIN, Petitioner,
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent. No. 75-2196. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit. Aug. 16, 1976.

David A. Rosenfeld of Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, Williams & Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Robert K. Salyers, Jr., Atty. of U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Page 1014

OPINION

Before CARTER and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, ^* District Judge.

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge:

The issue in this appeal is whether Les Mares Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "Les Mares") was an "employer engaged in a business affecting commerce" and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq.) (hereafter the "Act"). We hold that Les Mares was such an employer and we reverse the decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereafter the "Commission").

In late 1972, Les Mares owned several hundred acres of Napa Valley land, and it had employees engaged in clearing the land. As part of the clearing operation it was using a guillotine-like wood-chopping machine. The machine caused repeated employee complaints and accidents, including one incident in which a worker, petitioner Richard Godwin, lost three fingers from his right hand.

Pursuant to a routine inspection conducted by an authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor, Les Mares was cited on March 5, 1973, for a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), for failing to furnish its employees "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." Les Mares was served with a proposed penalty of $600 for this violation, and ordered to abate the condition within one day. Les Mares timely contested the citation and proposed penalty, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 659(c), and a hearing was conducted before one of the Commission's administrative law judges.

This judge found that there was an effect on interstate commerce and that the Commission therefore had jurisdiction. The judge held that the charged violation was valid. On review of this decision sought by Les Mares, the Commission reversed the administrative law judge. The Commission held that Les Mares was not engaging in a business affecting commerce because at the time of the citation and hearing Les Mares had not completed its plans to plant a vineyard and hence had not engaged in a business affecting commerce.

Les Mares admitted that its purpose in clearing the land was to plant a vineyard, and to sell grapes to wineries or produce wine itself. At the time of the hearing the activities had progressed beyond clearing. The land was being "ripped", a cultivation process that normally immediately precedes the planting of grapes. However, no vineyards had been planted and Les Mares had not yet determined whether it would do the growing and winemaking itself or lease the land to others for that purpose.

Uncontradicted testimony at the hearing showed that 65-70% of the wine produced in California is shipped out of state, and that at least 25-30%, and possibly up to 50%, of the wine produced in the Napa Valley location of Les Mares' land is shipped out of state. Testimony also showed that a significant amount of Napa Valley grapes is sold to wineries outside the valley, whose products move in interstate commerce. Also, tourists from out of state frequent Napa Valley wine-tasting rooms, where wine is made available for sale.

I. Scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

29 U.S.C. § 651 sets forth the Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy. This section reads, in part:

"The Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses and disability compensation payments.

Page 1015

"The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources . . ." (emphasis supplied)

The background of the Act was described in Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc., 504 F.2d 1255, 1259 (4 Cir. 1974), as follows:

"Confronting a legislative record which showed that each year 14,500 workers died and two million were disabled because of their jobs, resulting in $1.5 billion in lost wages and an $8 billion loss to the GNP (citation), Congress passed a wide-ranging bill, characterized by one commentator as 'the most revolutionary piece of "labor" legislation since the National Labor Relations Act.' " (citation)

The Act imposes duties under § 654 on "employers". 29 U.S.C. § 652(5) provides, in part: "The term 'employer' means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees . . . ."

The phrase "affecting commerce" in this Act has been interpreted by two other circuit courts as an...